ArticleBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Proceedings of the first international NMIBC consensus classification meeting.
Article in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a biologically and clinically heterogeneous disease, accounting for approximately 75% of bladder cancer cases. Over the past decade, multiple RNA-based molecular classification systems for NMIBC have been proposed, demonstrating associations with tumor stage, grade, prognosis, and treatment response. However, unlike muscle-invasive bladder cancer, a unified consensus classification for NMIBC is lacking, limiting clinical translation and cross-study comparability. To address this gap, the first NMIBC Consensus Classification Meeting was convened in November 2024 at Erasmus University Medical Center, bringing together 13 international experts from seven countries representing major NMIBC molecular classification efforts. This report summarizes the discussions, comparative evaluation of existing classification systems, and the agreed strategy towards developing a consensus molecular model. The meeting focused on harmonizing heterogeneous transcriptomic datasets, integrating RNA sequencing and microarray platforms, and assessing the applicability of classification models across tumor stages (Ta/T1) and grades. Key features, strengths, and limitations of the Lund Taxonomy, Leeds, Birmingham, UROMOL, and Rotterdam (BCG response) subtypes were critically examined. Building on prior experience from the muscle-invasive bladder cancer consensus, participants agreed on a centroid-based clustering framework using rigorously defined core samples to derive stable consensus subtypes and a single-sample classifier with associated probability scores. A large, curated dataset encompassing approximately 2500 NMIBC samples from published cohorts will facilitate model development and validation. The resulting consensus classification aims to improve biological understanding, facilitate reproducibility across studies, and enable future evaluation of prognostic and therapeutic relevance, including response to intravesical BCG therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.